J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant who is the original applicant has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Act for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE present appellant/original applicant filed an application for compensation for the personal injuries sustained by her arising out of a vehicular accident under Section I 10-A of the Act against the present respondent who is the original-opponent. She claimed initially an amount of Rs. 9 999 by way of compensation. The applicant subsequently enhanced the claim to Rs. 40 0 which was again reduced to Rs. 25 0 ( 3 ) THE unfortunate accident occurred on 2-5-1978 at about 4 p. m. near Laxminarayan bus stand in the city of Ahmedabad. The applicant Lalita was travelling in the Ahmedabad Munici- pal Transport Service bus (AMTS bus for short hereinafter) No. CTA 8576. When she was getting down from the bus at Laxminarayan bug stand at that time the driver of the bus all of a sudden started the bus after hearing the bell rung by the conductor of the bus. Before she could alight from the bus the bus started. As a result of this she was thrown out of the bus. She sustained serious injuries on her legs. According to her case her legs were crushed under the rear wheel of the bus. There was profuse bleeding after the accident and she was shifted to Shardaben Hospi- tal at Ahmedabad. She further contends that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver original opponent No. 1 who came to be deleted in the course of the proceedings. Opponent No. 2 Ahmedabad Municipal Corpo- ration who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal is the owner of the offending bus. The applicant claims Rs. 25 0 for personal injuries sustained by her from the original opponent No. 2 respondent herein owner of the offending bus. ( 4 ) THE opponent Corporation appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing written state- ment at Exh. 18. The claim was disputed. The allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus was denied. It was contended that the applicant had tried to get down from the running bus and she was responsible for the accident. Thus the claim petition was re- sisted. 18. The claim was disputed. The allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus was denied. It was contended that the applicant had tried to get down from the running bus and she was responsible for the accident. Thus the claim petition was re- sisted. ( 5 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 3 at Ahmedabad (Tribunal for short hereinafter) was pleased to hold that the applicant sustained personal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. The Tribunal awarded in all a sum of Rs. 13 500 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation with proportionate costs. The impugned award came to be passed on 18-3-1980. Thus Tribunal awarded Rs. 13 500 by way of compensaiton the break-up of which is as under: pain shock and sufferings Rs. 7 0 future economic loss Rs. 6 0 medical expenses Rs. 500. 00 -- Total Rs. 13 500 -- the remaining amount of Rs. 11 500 was not awarded out of Rs. 25 0 claimed by the applicant for the personal injuries. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for the remaining amount of Rs. 11 500 the original applicant has now come up before this court challenging its legality and validity. ( 7 ) THE controversy has shrunk down to a narrow dimension in this appeal. The question which is required to be examined and adjudicated upon is as to whether the appellant/origi- nal applicant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 11 500 for personal injuries which is not awarded by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the sole point posed before this court in this appeal it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts emerging from the evidence on record. ( 9 ) THE applicant Lalita was aged about 19 and she was unmarried on the unfortunate day of the accident. She was studying in new SSC i. e. 10th standard at the relevant time. She could not complete 10th standard on account of the injuries and follow-up treatment. ( 9 ) THE applicant Lalita was aged about 19 and she was unmarried on the unfortunate day of the accident. She was studying in new SSC i. e. 10th standard at the relevant time. She could not complete 10th standard on account of the injuries and follow-up treatment. She has sus- tained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 25 per cent in the left lower limb. She is also unable to squat and sit in a cross-legged position. She is also unable to put on chappals. She is required to use special shoes or sandals. She had sustained injuries in both legs. There was crush injury. ( 10 ) THE applicant immediately after the accident was shifted to Shardaben Hospital at Ahmedabad where she was admitted as an indoor patient. She was undergoing treatment for a period from May 197 8/01/1979. She remained as an indoor patient for more than 2/1/2 months in Shardaben Hospital. She was treated by orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Nandkishor Parikh. She was also treated by two other doctors i. e. Dr. Arvind C. Shah and Dr. M. M. Trivedi. ( 11 ) THE orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Nandkishor Parikh is examined at Exh. 58 and the medical certificate is produced at Exh. 59. Dr. Parikh was working as an orthopaedic surgeon in Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad since 1968 and since 1974 he is working as an honorary orthopaedic surgeon. According to the evidence of Dr. Parikh Lalita the original applicant was limping on left side when he examined her last on 31-1-1979. She was operated twice. A bone-grafting opera- tion was also carried out. There is a permanent sear on left foot. There was a fracture in the left foot. There was no sensation on the said portion of the left foot. Ankle movement of the left foot was restricted upto 90 degree. There is also a permanent sear on the left ankle joint. She finds dif- ficulty in climbing staircase and difficulty in walking on uneven ground. There is no sensation either on donor or grafted skin area. The applicant also finds diffuculty in standing and walking for a long period at a stretch. The facts thus far stated are no longer in controversy in this appeal. ( 12 ) THE medical certificate issued by the R. M. O. of Shardaben Hospital at Ahmedabad is produced at Exh. 29. The applicant also finds diffuculty in standing and walking for a long period at a stretch. The facts thus far stated are no longer in controversy in this appeal. ( 12 ) THE medical certificate issued by the R. M. O. of Shardaben Hospital at Ahmedabad is produced at Exh. 29. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Nandkishor Parikh is produced at Exh. 59. Indoor patient treatment and discharge cards are produced at Exhs. 31 32 and 33. School leaving certificate is produced at Exh. 36. Medical bills and receipts are also produced on record from Exhs. 37 to 57. ( 13 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 7 0 for pain shock and sufferings. It is contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. This submission is full of merits in view of the facts of the case narrated hereinbe- fore. To a young unmarried school-going girl who has sustained permanent partial disable- ment to the extent of 25 per cent in her left lower limb and who has undergone excruciating pain for a long spell after sustaining crush injuries in a violent bus accident the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. She was under- going medical treatment for a long period of about nine months. She could not attend the school and suffered loss of academic year which would also aggravate mental pain. She was operated twice. She sustained a fracture injury. Her movements are restricted. She finds diffi- culty in walking for a long period at a stretch. She was taking drugs and treatment for a long period. She was under plaster for a long period. All these factors would undoubtedly contribute to the pain shock and sufferings of a young school-going girl aged 19. Therefore considering the nature and number of injuries permanent partial disablement and the pain shock and sufferings suffered by the original applicant the amount of Rs. 7 0 awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. Even by taking a liberal view an amount of Rs. 12 0 should be awarded to the original applicant under the head of pain shock and sufferings in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. Therefore in the opinion of this court the applicant is entitled to Rs. Even by taking a liberal view an amount of Rs. 12 0 should be awarded to the original applicant under the head of pain shock and sufferings in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. Therefore in the opinion of this court the applicant is entitled to Rs. 12 0 for pain shock and sufferings. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7 0 under this head. Therefore the appli- cant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 5 0 by way of compensation for pain shock and sufferings. ( 14 ) THE Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 6 0 under the head of future economic loss. The assessment of the Tribunal under this head is also challenged. The Tribunal came to the con- clusion that the applicant is likely to suffer economic loss of Rs. 450. 00 per annum. The Tribunal held that on account of physical impairment she would require a maidservant to whom she would be required to pay Rs. 30. 00 per month. The Tribunal has simply held that the applicant would be required to pay Rs. 30. 00 per month for engaging a maidservant. It appears from the evidence on record that the Tribunal has taken a conservative view in the matter. Apart from the amount of Rs. 6 0 awarded under the head of future economic loss on account of required engagement of a maidservant on account of permanent partial disablement the applicant is also entitled to claim compensation for future economic loss as she is adversely affected in so far as her future employ- ment prospects are concerned. The Tribunal has observed that in so far as the work of a clerk is concerned she would not find difficulty in discharging clerical work. This observation pro- ceeds on two hypotheses i. e. firstly that she is likely to get a job of a clerk and secondly even after getting a job of a clerk there would be no difficulty in discharging the job of a clerk. These two assumptions have no valid basis in the facts of the present case. At any rate on account of permanent partial disablement the bodily integrity of the applicant is affected which undoubt- edly would affect her chances of getting employment. One can safely conclude that the case of the applicant in the employment market is weakened to a certain extent. At any rate on account of permanent partial disablement the bodily integrity of the applicant is affected which undoubt- edly would affect her chances of getting employment. One can safely conclude that the case of the applicant in the employment market is weakened to a certain extent. What job she would get in future would be a matter of anybodys guess at present. However undoubtedly on account of the effect on bodily integrity and permanent partial disablement while she would be entering into employment market she will have a very weak case. The Tribunal ought to have consid- ered this aspect. Even while taking a conservative view in the matter it can safely be concluded that she should be suffering at least Rs. 50. 00 per month in future which would come to Rs. 50 x 12 = Rs. 600/- per annum. Looking to the age of the applicant which is 19 multiplier of 15 will be reasonable. Therefore the applicant would be entitled to Rs. 9 0 at the minimum under the head of future economic loss which she is likely to suffer. Therefore the applicant would be en- titled to Rs. 9 0 towards the future economic loss. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6 0 under the head of future economic loss as the applicant would be required to engage a maidservant. Therefore the claiment is now entitled to an additional amount by way of compensation under he head of future economic loss at Rs. 9 0 ( 15 ) IN so far as the medical expenses and expenses for special diet are concerned the applicant is entitled to more amount than what is awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has simply awarded Rs. 500 for medical expenses. No amount is awarded under the head of special diet and transport charges. A young girl having sustained serious injuries on two legs and under- going excruciating pain for a spell of more than six months and undergoing treatment for about nine months would undoubtedly be required to spend more than Rs. 1 500 under the head of medical expenses transport charges and special diet. Since the Tribunal has awarded only meagre amount of Rs. 500 the applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1 0 under this head. ( 16 ) IN the result the original applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1 500 under the head of medical expenses transport charges and special diet. Since the Tribunal has awarded only meagre amount of Rs. 500 the applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1 0 under this head. ( 16 ) IN the result the original applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 15 0 under the aforesaid three heads. However in this appeal the applicant has restricted her claim to Rs. 11 500 The applicant who is the appellant before this court is entitled to the full amount as claimed in this appeal. Since the amount is restricted to Rs. 11 500 it would not be now necesssary to examine and assess the amount of compensation which would be award- able to the applicant under the head of loss of academic year and consequential effect on the prospects of matrimonial aspect. ( 17 ) IN view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case the nature and number of injuries consequential effect on her bodily integrity who is a young school-going girl aged 19 who is unmarried and permanent scars permanent restricted movements and permanent partial disablement to the extent of 25 per cent in the left lower limb the claimant/ appellant is found entitled to full amount of Rs. 11 500 as claimed in this appeal from the original opponent/respondent the owner of the offending bus. ( 18 ) THE next question would arise as to what rate of interest should be awarded. The claim- ant/appellant could have been awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of application till realisation. which is proper according to the settled position of law on this point. The Tribunal has awarded 6 per cent interest from the date of the application till realisation on the amount awarded i. e. Rs. 13 500 Therefore in the opinion of this court the application would be further entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of the application till realisation on the additional amount of Rs. 11 500 with full costs. ( 19 ) LASTLY it would be necessary to issue directions for the deposit of the additional amount together with interest and costs. 11 500 with full costs. ( 19 ) LASTLY it would be necessary to issue directions for the deposit of the additional amount together with interest and costs. Respondent/ original opponent No. 2 the Corporation owner of the offending AMTS bus shall deposit before the concerned Tribunal the additional amount of compensation i. e. Rs. 11 500 with interest and costs as aforesaid within a period of 12 weeks from today. ( 20 ) THE amount of compensation with interest as aforesaid shall be invested in a Government security or in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period not less than ten years and the applicant/appellant shall be entitled to the interest which shall accrue due thereon periodically. . ( 21 ) THE applicant/appellant shall not be entitled to create any charge or encumbrance on the said amount invested in Government security or in fixed deposit without prior ap- proval of the concerned Tribunal. ( 22 ) THE amount of costs shall be paid to the applicant/appellant by account payee cheque. In view of the aforesaid discussion in the result the appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned judgment and award would stand modified to the aforesaid extent. .